On Friday 10 Nov 2006 10:13 pm, Thaths wrote: > Would it not be more cost-effective for India to spend that money on > making sure truly representative democracy works in > Indian-administered Kashmir and creating economic opportunities for > the youth? After all, it worked in Punjab in the 90's.
This worked after ALL foreign trained and armed locals were ruthlessly eliminated, and the "foreign hand" lost steam with regard to Sikhs. Representative democracy could possibly come to Kashmir when the constant inflow of arms and terrorists comes to a halt. Democracy itself assumes that everyone is agreed upon the rules - i.e. if a given percentage of votes are cast against you, you back down and accept defeat. Furthermore you sit back and watch while the voting is in progress even if you are worried that all those people going to vote may vote against you and ensure your defeat. If any (or all) parties resort to "taking out" the opposition by bombs and guns - all talk of democracy is moot. If the source of funds and guns is outside the control of local people, it complicates the picture even further. If one outside party does not stop doing this, no other interested outside party can afford to stop. A different kind of democracy is coming to Assam and West Bengal especially in the border regions with Bangladesh. Illegal migration is swelling the number of Bangladeshis but local politics includes them in the electoral rolls. But that is democracy in action. Aided as always by corruption. shiv
